Live Science Magazine reported that English archaeologists did indeed discover an overwhelming genetic similarity between the Canaanites of around 1500 BC and modern day Lebanese. They were so surprised! How inane and a-scientific can Darwinians get! We could have told them that fact without an expensive DNA test.
If they had read all the ancient chronicles and historians from that time and onward, they would have easily known and not been surprised at all, that they indeed descended from their patriarch Canaan!, and that not just because “Moses & Joshua wrote about it“, but these ‘scientists’ despise simple Euhemerist explanations!
Continue reading “Live Science” Finds Canaanite DNA in the Lebanese But Replaces Patriarch Canaan With a Darwinist “Stone Age Hunter Gatherer”
By Brian Forbes
I aim to show that any evidence presented to us will invariably take a back seat to the fertility of the soil in our hearts. It is our bias that determines what we are able to see and accept for evidence.
Bias defined: An emotional inclination to a particular view. Bias will often influence how you accept or reject evidence. Any position that has allowed for human evaluation will include bias. The question is not if there is bias. The question is what does your bias support. …and I can prove it.
Science is supposed to be based in objectivity – raw facts that lead to unemotional conclusions. The scientific method can be traced through:
- René Descartes – who rid his mind of all bias
- Francis Bacon – who described science in terms of cause and effect (experiments)
- Karl Popper – falsifiability
They defined how we can know things without appealing to feeling. They set limits for “science” or knowledge. If it ain’t falsifiable,
it ain’t science. WATCH! Continue reading The Role of Bias in the Origins Debate – Video by Brian Forbes + Powerpoint
Former CBS Reporter Exposes Media Lies, Internet Shills & Astroturfing – MUST SEE!!! She speaks how Corporations warp our perception of products, agendas, narratives, politics, etc, via all kinds of forms of gross deception. She completely trashes Wikipedia’s reliability. One author was not allowed to change facts on WP because WP said, “He is not the best source on himself!” On hiS OWN BOOK! For Crying Out Loud!
And this is supposed to be a source that most historical researchers consult and trust? Yes! Wikipedia’s anonymous editors – powerful agents with no accountability – twist, distort, change truth, mold minds, push their agenda, and manipulate their users and HISTORICAL researchers. WHY HISTORY? What is there to be manipulated? First watch this unusual honest TED Talk! Continue reading Ex CBS Reporter on Media Lies, Internet Shills & Astroturfing Trashes Wikipedia! – So is Historical Science! Warped!
The Independent newspaper (now only online) is one kind of newspaper for “smarter” Brits, to keep them interested inspite of their intelligence and STILL be able to dish up the lies that bind them to the politically correct narratives of the Establishment. You’ve got to see that the deep state or the Establishment controls all sides of the spectrum from the Guardian on the Far Left, to the Right with the Independence.
Continue reading “Fresh-from-the-Cave” Sumerians Used Calculus to Track Jupiter?
PP Editor: ALTHOUGH (as most of you know) I AM NOT A REACTIONARY ‘CREATIONIST’, I like this rebuttal of fault seeking “consensus science” Darwinian skeptics. Enjoy!
(a Creationist rebuttal of Mark Isaak’s “Problems with a Global Flood” FAQ in the Talk.Origins Archive) © 1998-2015 J. Sarfati & Creation Ministries International. All Rights Reserved.
any are familiar with Talk.Origins, counted among the top pro-evolution sites on the Internet. Most of the people running it are ostensibly atheistic. Many had a Christian upbringing and are using evolution as a pseudo-intellectual justification for their apostasy. But they realise that rank atheism is repugnant to many, so they publish articles claiming that you can believe in God and evolution. It’s quite a sight to see people, known personally to us as rabidly hostile to Christianity, yet who are eager to assure inquirers that many Christians accept evolution. It reminds me of Lenin’s strategy of cultivating useful idiots in the West, who were too gullible to realise that they were undermining their own foundations. See also The Skeptics and their Churchian Allies In one sense, it’s good to see articles like that by Mark Isaak, where the author displays his contempt for Scripture [and I don’t simply mean questioning biblical literalism, but direct mocking attacks against the Christian belief that the Bible is the inerrant written Word of God that “cannot be broken” as Christ Himself believed (John 10:35)], yet feigns concern that “a global flood makes the whole Bible less credible.” How do police investigators normally treat statements by witnesses who are blatantly dishonest?
The serious and objective student of this topic would definitely find it worthwhile purchasing John Woodmorappe’s book Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, which answers most of the other objections. Isaak has supposedly “updated” his article to give the impression that he has responded to Woodmorappe. But it’s interesting to compare the two, and see that Isaak has hardly read Woodmorappe, who had more scholarship on each page than Isaak had in his whole article. Continue reading Problems with a Global Flood? (We haven’t heard of any!)